Supreme Court: "Denying Court-Appointed Counsel to Defendant Claiming Poverty Violates Right to Defense"

"Defendant Submitted Evidence Such as a Certificate of Basic Living Security Beneficiary"

The Supreme Court has ruled that denying the defendant's request for a court-appointed lawyer after being indicted for causing a disturbance in an emergency room constitutes an infringement of the defendant's right to defense.

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

According to the legal community on June 3, the First Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Lee Sook-yeon) overturned the lower court's ruling that had fined Mr. A 6 million won in an appeal trial for violating the Emergency Medical Service Act, and remanded the case to the Busan District Court.

The Supreme Court raised concerns about procedural flaws during the trial. During the appellate proceedings, Mr. A submitted documentation proving that he was a beneficiary under the National Basic Living Security Act and requested the appointment of a court-appointed lawyer. However, the appellate court rejected the request and proceeded with the trial without legal counsel, ultimately delivering a verdict.

Under Article 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if a defendant is unable to appoint counsel due to poverty or other reasons and makes a request, the court must appoint a defense attorney.

The Supreme Court stated, "Since the defendant submitted supporting documents such as a certificate of beneficiary status, there is ample reason to believe he was unable to appoint counsel due to poverty. Nonetheless, proceeding with the trial without appointing a court-appointed lawyer raises concerns about the protection of the right to defense."

Previously, Mr. A was indicted on charges of obstructing emergency medical treatment after he verbally abused medical staff, punched a wall, and assaulted a doctor who attempted to restrain him in the hospital emergency room.

At the first trial, the court found Mr. A guilty and sentenced him to 10 months in prison, suspended for 2 years, along with 120 hours of community service. In the second trial, the appellate court accepted Mr. A's argument that the sentence was too harsh, overturned the original ruling, and reduced the penalty to a fine of 6 million won.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.